From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Frank Knobbe <frank(at)knobbe(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: postgres 7.4 at 100% |
Date: | 2004-06-28 19:40:02 |
Message-ID: | 200406281240.02954.josh@agliodbs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Frank,
> Doug said the same, yet the PG Tuning article recommends not make this
> too large as it is just temporary used by the query queue or so. (I
> guess the system would benefit using more memory for file system cache)
As one of the writers of that article, let me point out:
" -- Medium size data set and 256-512MB available RAM: 16-32MB (2048-4096)
-- Large dataset and lots of available RAM (1-4GB): 64-256MB (8192-32768) "
While this is probably a little conservative, it's still way bigger than 40.
I would disagree with the folks who suggest 32,000 as a setting for you. On
Linux, that's a bit too large; I've never seen performance improvements with
shared_buffers greater than 18% of *available* RAM.
--
-Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Frank Knobbe | 2004-06-28 21:46:55 | Re: postgres 7.4 at 100% |
Previous Message | Jim | 2004-06-28 17:44:03 | Re: SQL stupid query plan... terrible performance ! |